Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Star Trek fan productions. The suggestion to merge to Star Trek fan productions stands unchallenged after it was proposed Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient third-party coverage to establish notability. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a shame no-one has been able to cite any reliable sources in the last 5 years, because the film sounds fun! However, though it may have some fame amongst trekkies, the blog-o-sphere and YouTube officianados, it clearly has not been noticed by any reliable news sources, therefore clearly fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (reluctantly) - could not find any reliable sources. Search of newspaper archives turned up nothing. Moswento (talk | contribs) 10:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article mentions (and the first AfD largely turned upon) coverage of this fan film in a August 26, 1996 BBC documentary. Such BBC coverage would constitute coverage in an independent reliable source--our rules do not require online access thereto. See WP:OFFLINE. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect as not notable. Being mentioned in a BBC documentary goes some way toward notability, but we need something to be able to verifiably write an article from, otherwise it's just a line in Star Trek fan productions. That is, we need reliable sources about this film to have an article on it. These do not seem to exist. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think a BBC documentary counts as a reliable source; the question is moreso whether or not the coverage is significant enough for the article, both for notability and verifiability purposes. I don't think a reasonable decision can be made either way without seeing the source, or at least information about how much coverage the source has (e.g. whether it's trivial coverage, or detailed information). 216.174.109.254 (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete relunctantly per Moswento and whoever at IP 216.174.109.254. It looks fun, but there are insufficient sources with significant discussion. The only citations I found were at tv.com. Fanfic can be notable, but this isn't. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 6 years later we're back. This 16-minte short being part of a BBC documentary 8 years after original release is almost convincing per "other attributes", even if a BBC link is no longer available after 24 years. And though certainly cheesy by today's standards, this one was really not too bad for a fan film of 1988.[1][2] It is not too surprisning that this fan-made short did not get a review in The New York Times or anaysis by Roger Ebert, but as this project has some sourcability in books,[3][4][5] if it develops that the BBC screening 8 years after its initial release is somehow not a suitable "re-release or screening", is there no place where it might be mentioned and redirected? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested Star Trek fan productions. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Missed that. I would be okay with a Redirect and partial merge to Star Trek fan productions#Parodies. Would your "delete" up above be the same? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on second thoughts. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I'm indifferent at the moment because of the BBC doccumentary claim however, I don't know if I've missed something but the BBC doccumentary doesn't seem to appear as a source. If it manages to turn up, then I'll have no problems changing my !vote to a keep. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Well, since no-one seems to be prepared to track down that BBC doccumentary, I'll go along with what most people are saying and support a merge as aside of the lack of RS, it would be a waste to just discard it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion shows that some discussion about this production belongs in Wikipedia's coverage of Trek fandom; accordingly, deletion is the wrong result. I would have no problem with a merge/redirect to Star Trek fan productions#Parodies. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Star Trek fan productions#Parodies per above. There isn't enough coverage in reliable third party sources in order for this subject to meet the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.